Re: [racket-dev] syntax/stx vs racket/private/stx

2011-05-16 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> At Fri, 13 May 2011 17:38:41 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >>> The `syntax/stx' and `racket/private/stx' libraries contain a bunch of >>> duplication.  In particular, the following

Re: [racket-dev] syntax/stx vs racket/private/stx

2011-05-16 Thread Robby Findler
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Fri, 13 May 2011 17:38:41 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> The `syntax/stx' and `racket/private/stx' libraries contain a bunch of >> duplication.  In particular, the following functions seem identical: >> `stx-null?' `stx-list?' `stx->

Re: [racket-dev] syntax/stx vs racket/private/stx

2011-05-16 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Fri, 13 May 2011 17:38:41 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > The `syntax/stx' and `racket/private/stx' libraries contain a bunch of > duplication. In particular, the following functions seem identical: > `stx-null?' `stx-list?' `stx->list' `stx-pair?' `stx-car' `stx-cdr'. > > Is there any rea

[racket-dev] syntax/stx vs racket/private/stx

2011-05-13 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
The `syntax/stx' and `racket/private/stx' libraries contain a bunch of duplication. In particular, the following functions seem identical: `stx-null?' `stx-list?' `stx->list' `stx-pair?' `stx-car' `stx-cdr'. Is there any reason not to just have `syntax/stx' reprovide them, instead of defining dup